| As for Lamont:
When asked if he would be seeking Mr. Lamont's endorsement, Mr. Himes said Mr. Lamont was one of the first people he called and that he was "very, very supportive."
"He thought the candidacy is a great idea," Mr. Himes said. "Ned was a guy who came out of nowhere to stand up for a very important idea. That resonates with me. I will welcome any help Ned wants to give me. That said, there are still open wounds in the district associated with the Lamont/Lieberman race and at all costs we need to heal those wounds."
On Wednesday morning, Mr. Lamont confirmed his support of Mr. Himes to the Post.
"I think Jim Himes is going to be a sensational candidate for the U.S. Congress," Mr. Lamont said. "He's got a great mix of private sector experience and working for the public good on issues such as affordable housing. I think he knows the district very well and he'd be a breath of fresh air that congress could use."
Ned's support this early is a tremendous boost to Jim. Jim's comment acknowledging that there are still some bruises in the local party organizations over last year's primaries -- and I'd include he Malloy/DeStefano primary in that mix -- is astute. From conversations with Jim, I trust that he understands the importance of running a strong unified campaign throughout the district. I vehemently disagree, though, with his sense of Diane Farrell as victim of factors beyond her control:
If he does run, Mr. Himes is hopeful he will not have to face the challenges Ms. Farrell did last year. He said the split in the Democratic ticket between Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Lamont and the presence of New Haven Mayor Richard DeStefano as the party's nominee for governor and not Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy were the major reasons Mr. Shays was re-elected.
"Diane ran first-rate campaigns and she came out of nowhere to almost defeat an incumbent congressman," Mr. Himes said. "The Lamont/Lieberman split was deadly for her and she would have had far more success had the gubernatorial candidate been a 4th District Stamford mayor. I think she ran a heroic campaign. There were missteps made, but she really fell victim to a number of things beyond the control of the campaign."
There are always external factors that influence a campaign, but Himes is way off the mark in implying that the seat was not winnable due to Malloy's loss and the Lamont/Lieberman split. (Murphy and Courney were hardly "victims" of identical circumstances.) Diane lost by just about 50 votes per voting district, and blaming that close a shortfall primarily on external factors is as lame as Lieberman saying he lost the primary because it was "a hot day in August".
I don't want to turn this into a post bashing Diane or my hardworking colleagues in her campaign (and understand why Jim would want to keep his comments about Farrell positive) but I firmly believe that both the Lamont and the Farrell campaigns lost primarily due to factors that were within our control, and I include myself in taking responsibility for our shortcomings.
Any candidate who hopes to win in the 4th needs to learn how to do it better next time. If Jim faces a challenge for the seat from within the party, he's going to have to show Democrats that he understands the elements within Farrell's control that led to her defeat. The good news is that Himes and any potential candidate in the 4th has time now to learn those lessons and build a foundation for victory next November. |
Ken Borsuk at the 
MLN is powered by